“Diversity” … Discrimination … and the DISCRIMINATIONS Award For Originality

Long-time readers of this blog, if there are any, in addition to having a high tolerance for pain, will be familiar with my recurring criticism of what I’ve termed (with Joanne Jacobs’ assistance) the inividious, ubiquitous non-sequitur (IUNS), namely, the view that if any kind of discrimination is legitimate, all kinds must be legitimate. Because of my fixation on these matters, I see this argument several times a day. “Why do you complain against racial preferences,” the familiar refrain goes, “when you don’t have the same complaint against preferences for place kickers or piccolo players?”

Well, because racial discrimination is wrong and evil and those other forms of discrimination, although perhaps bad policy, aren’t.

Not surprisingly, if you lower the barriers against discrimination and replace the stigma against it with positive encouragement, you tend to get more of it. Thus one of the most pervasive but little-noticed practices of what its defenders would view as progressive, enlightened discrimination is admission preferences for … males. Men, it seems, are increasingly “underrepresented” in many colleges, and thus it is easier for them to get in.

This trendy discrimination has not been totally ignored (see, for example, “Admissions Officers Walk a Fine Line in Gender-Balancing Act,” Christian Science Monitor, May 22, 2001), but it is safe to say that not much public controversy has been heard. The National Organization for Women, for example, has been as silent about this as it was about the behavior of the former sex harasser in chief. Now USA Today has an editorial on the subject. (Link via Erin O’Connor)

USA Today‘s purpose, however, is not to lament the discrimination against women college applicants. It is to worry and whine that if the Supremes bar racial preferences then — heaven forbid! — gender preferences may have to be abandoned as well. (Of course, they may be wrong about this. Racial and gender discrimination are not on precisely the same legal and constitutional foundation, but that’s another story.)

Here’s how USA Today makes the tiresome IUNS argument:

If colleges lose the flexibility to consider [race], they would face an awkward dilemma. They would be free to continue adjusting their admissions standards to accept star athletes, gifted musicians and children of alumni or generous donors. But they would lose the latitude to make admissions decisions that guarantee a rich mixture of students that improves the education process, enhances campus life and better prepares students for today’s diverse society.

Nothing new there. Distributing benefits and burdens based on race is no different from rewarding or not rewarding based on musical or athletic ability, etc. But the editors do add one twist to the basic IUNS that is noteworthy: the false dichotomy variation:

When courts strike down minority-preference programs, they deny colleges an effective way to ensure that their students reflect the diversity of the taxpayers who fund the schools. They also send the troubling message that only objective measures, such as grades and standardized test scores, are legally acceptable admissions criteria.

Among the many things that could be said about this attempt to warn of dire consequences, perhaps the most important is that it simply isn’t true. Telling colleges they may no longer give preferences based on race in no way prevents them from discriminating on virtually all other criteria (as the editorial elsewhere recognizes), and it certainly does not limit them to grades and test scores. They could admit randomly, or by geography, or by intended major, or whatever. All the ban on racial discrimination would require is that whatever standards are employed be applied without regard to race. It hasn’t been long since such a policy would have been regarded as reflecting one of our core values.

The editorial, however, does break some important new ground. What is new is the almost humorous attempt to sweep every kind of preference under the rug of “diversity.”

In fact, colleges routinely manipulate their admissions criteria to attract the students they believe will create the best mix. That’s why talented athletes often have lower average grades and test scores than their classmates, and why children of alumni and generous donors get favored treatment.

Does USA Today really believe that athletes and legacies are given preferences to promote “diversity”? I don’t think so. It’s more likely that they didn’t think at all, blindly accepting the notion popular in elite circles these days that the need for “diversity” trumps all other values.

But their argument does have one great virtue: it’s unique. I’ve never seen it anywhere else, and so I hereby award it the prestigious DISCRIMINATIONS award for originality: a free subscription to this blog.

UPDATE – Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe agrees (although he doesn’t know he’s agreeing with me).

Say What? (1)

  1. Walter May 25, 2003 at 4:36 am | | Reply

    John, what would be the best way to get a copy of your dissertation? And what is it about, more specifically?

Say What?